Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.

Background: The proportion of women doctors has been rising globally and South Korea mirrors this trend. Despite this growth, women doctors’ representation in leadership roles in academic medical fields remains scarce. This study investigates the representation and trends of women doctors’ leadership in editorial boards of South Korean medical journals, and compares the gender ratio of specialists. Methods: This non-clinical data analysis examined the editorial boards of 45 major medical academic journals published in 2015, 2020, and 2024 to investigate women leadership within journal editorial boards, compares the gender ratio of specialists, and observed changes over time. Results: The study included data from 1,475 members in 2015, 1,598 in 2020, and 2,531 in 2024.In 2020, 23.8% of specialists were women, but only 19.5% of editorial board members were women (P < 0.001). Nine journals had less than 10% women representation on their editorial boards. Over nine years, women representation on editorial boards increased from 16.8% in 2015 to 21.3% in 2024 (P = 0.001), with significant increases in societies of clinical medicine (14.6% vs. 20.0%; P < 0.001) but not in basic medicine. Journals with women editors-in-chief had significantly higher women representation on their boards compared to ones with male editorsin-chief (36.7 ± 13.5% vs. 18.4 ± 10.9%, P < 0.001). The proportion of women senior editorial roles and that of women executive society members showed a significant positive correlation with the proportion of women on editorial boards (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively). Conclusion The study highlights the considerable underrepresentation of women in editorial leadership compared to their presence as specialists. However, the number of women editorial board members has increased over the past decade, especially in clinical medicine. Women doctors’ leadership positively correlates with higher women participation on boards, which suggests that promoting women leaders could enhance gender diversity in academic medicine. Further qualitative research is needed to explore the impact of women doctors’ leadership on medical research and patient outcomes. This study provides critical insights into gender disparities in South Korean medical academia and underscores the need for policies to promote women doctors’ leadership.

Background: An ideal lung allocation system should reduce waiting list deaths, improve transplant survival, and ensure equitable organ allocation. This study aimed to develop a novel lung allocation score (LAS) system, the MaxBenefit LAS, to maximize transplant benefits. Methods: This study retrospectively analyzed data from the Korean Network for Organ Sharing database, including 1,599 lung transplant candidates between September 2009 and December 2020. We developed the MaxBenefit LAS, combining a waitlist mortality model and a post-transplant survival model using elastic-net Cox regression, was assessed using area under the curve (AUC) values and Uno’s C-index. Its performance was compared to the US LAS in an independent cohort. Results: The waitlist mortality model showed strong predictive performance with AUC values of 0.834 and 0.818 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The post-transplant survival model also demonstrated good predictive ability (AUC: 0.708 and 0.685). The MaxBenefit LAS effectively stratified patients by risk, with higher scores correlating with increased waitlist mortality and decreased post-transplant mortality. The MaxBenefit LAS outperformed the conventional LAS in predicting waitlist death and identifying candidates with higher transplant benefits. Conclusion The MaxBenefit LAS offers a promising approach to optimizing lung allocation by balancing the urgency of candidates with their likelihood of survival post-transplant. This novel system has the potential to improve outcomes for lung transplant recipients and reduce waitlist mortality, providing a more equitable allocation of donor lungs.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.